Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
J.M.Srivastava, B.P.Saraf, JJ.
Pankaj Kumar Dasgupta -Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura and Ors. -Respondent
Civil Rule Nos. 49 and 159 of 1980
Decided On : 29-06-1990
TRIPURA SALES TAX ACT, 1976 - SECTION 12(1) - RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES - MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD - SCOPE AND MEANING - POWER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, failed to submit returns for three quarters and did not comply with notices issued by the Superintendent of Taxes. The Superintendent made a best judgment assessment based on available materials and estimated the petitioner's turnover and determined the tax payable. The petitioner filed rectification petitions under section 12(1) of the Act, claiming that the assessment was arbitrary and not based on material. The Superintendent and the Commissioner rejected the petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the power of rectification under section 12(1) of the Act is limited to rectification of mistakes apparent from the records of the case. A mistake apparent from the record is an obvious, patent, and self-evident mistake that does not require a complicated process of investigation, argument, or proof to establish. The record includes all proceedings on which the impugned order is based, but the assessing authority cannot go beyond the records and look into fresh evidence or material.
Issues: Whether the best judgment assessment made by the Superintendent of Taxes was based on any evidence on record and whether the assessment itself was a "mistake apparent from the records" rectifiable under section 12(1) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's grievance was not a mistake apparent from the record but a disagreement with the estimation of turnover made by the Superintendent of Taxes. The petitioner sought a review of the assessment order and re-estimation of turnover based on fresh information, which is not permissible under section 12(1) of the Act. The power of rectification under section 12(1) is limited to correcting obvious and patent mistakes from the records, not debatable points of law or failure to apply the law to facts requiring investigation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the Superintendent of Taxes and the Commissioner were justified in rejecting the rectification petitions and refusing to interfere with the assessment orders.
The petitioner is a partner of a firm, namely M/s. S.Das & Company, Agartala. The said firm (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner)' carries on the business of sale and supply of motor parts, tyres ere It is registered as a dealer under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) with effect from 9 6 76. The petitioner failed to submit the returns under section 8 of the Act for the three quarters covering the period from 1.7.76 to 31.3.77. Notices were issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Taxes from him to time in that regard. The petitioner did not comply with the same. Opportunity was also given in terms of the proviso to section 9 (4) of the Act. The last date was fixed on 27.5.77. The petitioner did not avail of the same. Under tie circumstances, the Superintendent of Taxes made his own enquiries for the purpose of making summary assessment. He sent his Inspector to visit the business premises of the petitioner to examine the books of account. The Inspector visited on more than one occasion but the accounts were not made available to him by the petitioner on one plea or the other. The Superintendent of Taxes, therefore, estimated the turnover of the petitioner on the basis of the materials available to him and made the assessment to the best of his judgment under section 9 (4) of the Act. By a common order of assessment he estimated the turnover of the petitioner for the two quarters covering the period from 1.7.76 to 31.12.76 and determined the tax payable at Rs. 31,500/- and interest at Rs. 900/-. The total demand was Rs.32,4001-. By another order of assessment, the turnover for the quarter ending 31.5.77 was estimated. The tax payable for this quarter was determined at Rs.l7,5(0/- and interest Rs.200/-, the total demand amounted to Rs. 17,700/-. Demand notices were duly served on the petitioner for the aforesaid two amounts. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal or revision against the said orders of assessment, nor did he file any petition under section
10 of the Act for cancellation of the best judgment assessment. He deposited a sum of Rs.76,813.40 P. out of the demand for Rs.32,41 0/-for the two quarters ending 31.12.76 and a sum of Rs. 11,500/- out of the demand for Rs.l7,7CO/- far the quarter ending 31.3.77. Two sums of Rs. 5,586.40 P. and Rs. 6.2JO/- remained outstanding against the petitioners.
2. Thereafter en 13.12.78, the petitioner filed petitions before the Superintendent of Taxes under section 12(1) of the Act for rectification of mistake in the orders of assessment on the ground that the assessment made by him were arbitrary and not based on material. A prayer was made that the petitioner should be assessed . s per the particulars furnished in the rectification petitions. The Superintendent of Taxes by his order dated 30.3.79 rejected the petitions on the ground that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record. Against the said orders the petitioner moved revision petitions before the Commissioner of Taxes, The Commissioner of Taxes by a common order dated 3.8.80 rejected the revision petitions on the ground that what was sought for in the rectification petition was redetermination of the turnover of the petitioner and not rectification of any mistake apparent from the records. The Commissioner of Taxes, therefore, held that the case of the petitioner did not fall within the scope of section 12(1) of the Act and, accordingly, dismissed the revision petitions. Against the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner these two writ petitions have been filed. The sole contention of the petitioner is that the best judgment assessment made by the Superintendent of Taxes by his orders of assessment dated 13.6.77 under section 9 (4) of the Act are not based on any evidence on record and as such, the assessment itself is a "mistake apparent from the records".
3. We have heard Mr. B.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Na
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
